From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141202024223.31A5BB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
References: <1417410858.1852249.197150289.78A68333@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<cdabc05fb7b2b3a275be8dbf36624599@lilly.quanstro.net>
	<1417423412.1914203.197194673.02F8E8C7@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CAGGHmKH7yDkQF08YLshbnkh9UVoi7T4S7uZ2VKbK3763zdVzXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141202024223.31A5BB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
Date: Mon,  1 Dec 2014 21:31:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CAGGHmKFxcQ4nQEkwxScCwF3RQzbBvzPnjS_RO2zO65X=ZTMTCA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Steven Stallion <sstallion@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] Porting plan9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 318ad668-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:54:36 CST Steven Stallion <sstallion@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, u-boot is not a net-negative at all. For SoC's it simplifies
>> boot significantly - there is zero reason to eschew the functionality
>> it brings.
>
> Do you think it is worth adding support for "flattened device
> tree" (a data structure that describes system hardware)?  IIRC
> uboot already supports FDT.  Supposedly FDT reduces the
> porting effort and more than one system may even be able to
> use the same kernel (but with a different FDT).

I looked into it at the time. FDT makes more sense for targets that
have dynamically addressable peripherals (think PCI et al.) For an
SoC, you're dealing with fixed addresses, so there is very little gain
in this context.

Steve